RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02082
	INDEX NUMBERS:  111.02; 131.00;     
                                               107.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His three Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) covering the period 21 May 1989 through 31 January 1992 be upgraded to overall ratings of 5; he be promoted to Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt/E-8); and he be awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM) for the period 8 August 1988 to 30 September 1992.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was forced to retire and lost promotion to E-8 because he refused to cover up inspection deficiency reports about his supervisors and took leave by working through the base hospital instead of receiving his supervisors’ permission.

In support of his appeal, applicant provided his personal statement, copies of the contested reports, documents submitted with his rebuttal to the referral EPR closing 20 May 1991, and letters of appreciation/statements from co-workers.  

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty from 7 August 1970 until 30 September 1992.  He voluntarily retired effective 1 October 1992.  

His highest grade held was MSgt, with a date of rank of 1 September 1989.  

Applicant’s APR/EPR profile following promotion to Technical Sergeant follows:

Period Closing				Overall Evaluation

  25 Feb 84					9
	 9 Jul 84					9
	20 May 85					9
	20 May 86					9
	20 May 87					9	
	20 May 88					9
	20 May 89					9
 *20 May 90 (EPR/MSgt)					3
 *20 May 91					2 (Referral)
 *31 Jan 92					3

* Contested Reports

He met the cycle 93S8 promotion board for SMSgt and received a board score of 285.00 and a total promotion score of 490.49.  The required score for promotion in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 679.50.

On 16 August 1991, the Squadron Commander notified the applicant he would not be awarded the AFGCM for the period 8 August 1988 to    20 May 1991, due to his level of performance during the last reporting period.
___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPE recommends denial and states, in part, that applicant failed to provide any support substantiating the reports are inaccurate and failed to provide substantial evidence that he was treated unfairly.  In order to substantiate reprisal occurred, the applicant must file a complaint with the IG, and include a copy of their summary and Report of Investigation with his appeal.  The applicant did not mention any official complaint, nor did he provide any substantial evidence that reprisal occurred.  Furthermore, it was the responsibility of the evaluators to rate the applicant as they deemed necessary.  There is strong indication the evaluators were fully aware of the applicant’s strengths and weaknesses and rated him accordingly.  

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB explained that the first time the 1990 and 1991 reports were considered in the promotion process was cycle 93S8 to SMSgt.  The applicant received a total promotion score of 490.49 and the required score for promotion in his AFSC was 679.50.  Should the Board grant the applicant’s request to upgrade these two reports, he would be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration.  However, since promotion history files are only maintained for a period of 10 years, there is no way to go back almost 13 years (board convened October 1991) and determine if the applicant would have been selected for promotion.  

HQ AFPC/DPPPRA supports denial of the AFGCM stating there was no documentation found in the member’s records reversing the denial of the AFGCM for the period 8 August 1988 to 20 May 1991.  Accordingly, there was no justification provided to reverse the decision the commander made at the time.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends that he was treated unfairly by his chain of command and provides the same supporting evidence of letters of appreciation and character references submitted with his application to demonstrate his work ethic.  

Applicant’s response to the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC‑2004-02082 in Executive Session on 5 Oct 04, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 11 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 04.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 4 Sep 04, w/atch.